Redevelopment in Jacksonville Beach, Florida: a Coastal Zone Management Perspective Keith E
University of Rhode Island DigitalCommons@URI
Theses and Major Papers Marine Affairs
4-1983 Redevelopment in Jacksonville Beach, Florida: A Coastal Zone Management Perspective Keith E. Falt University of Rhode Island
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/ma_etds Part of the Natural Resources Management and Policy Commons, and the Oceanography and Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology Commons
Recommended Citation Falt, Keith E., "Redevelopment in Jacksonville Beach, Florida: A Coastal Zone Management Perspective" (1983). Theses and Major Papers. Paper 75.
This Major Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Marine Affairs at DigitalCommons@URI. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Major Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@URI. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND
REDEVELOPMENT IN JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FLORIDA;
A COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE
A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND
MARINE AFFAIRS
BY KEITH E. FALT
APRIL, 1983 PREFACE
The purpose of this paper is to provi de the communi ty leaders and the concerned citizens of Jacksonvi Lle Beach,
Florida with an understanding of the issues involved with deve lopmen t of the beachfron t of tha t communi ty. Too of ten development projects are planned and implemented with those responsible unaware of many of the factors which will impact the success of the project. The unusual qualities of the shoreline mandate careful consideration.
The first three chapters of this paper are dedicated to presenting the various factors to be considered in beachfront development. It is important that anyone concerned with the project have a basic understanding of the forces, both natural and manmade, which differentiate building on the fragile, ever shifting sands bordering the sea from the more stable inland locations.
The data contained within the paper could only have been assembled with the help of numerous contributors who unselfishly gave of their time to help. It was a pleasure to work with the many individuals involved and my thanks are extended to all who contributed to the proj ec t.
i CONTENTS
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION 2
I I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND PUBLIC ACCESS 7
The beach 7
Coastal storms 14
Public access 19
III. ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS 28
Economic impacts 28
Construction in the coastal zone 38
IV. THE JACKSONVILLE BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 41
Regional setting 41
History of the redevelopment effort 44
The Conceptual Plan 48
V. ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES 58
ii iii
VI. CONCLUSION 69
FOOTNOTES 73
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 82 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure
1. Beach P rofi Le 8
2. Beach Renourishment 1 3
3. Deaths and Damages From Hurricanes in the United
States 15
4. Map of the Redevelopment Area Indicating Flood Zones 17
5. project Boundary Survey 24
6. Lengthening the Taxable Shoreline 35
7. Vicinity Map of the Jacksonville Area 42
8. Conceptual Development Plan 49
9. Beachfront Planning, Phase One 64
10. Beachfront Planning, Phase Two 65
11. Beachfront Planning, Phase Three 66
12. Beachfront planning, Phase Four 67
13. Beachfront Planning, Phase Five 68
iv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The City of Jacks onvi lIe Beach has been deeply in vo I ved in the planning stage of redevelopment for five years. Various plans ha ve been proposed and re j ected during this period. The eight block beachfront within the redevelopment area offers the
City unique opportunities to be a leader in coastal zone planning, to upgrade its tax bas e, and impro ve th e qua Iity of life of the general public. Fai lure to consider factors peculiar to development within the coastal zone may create more development similar to that which has negatively impacted so many communities in the recent past. Jacksonville Beach is fortunate to be undertaking its beachfront redevelopment subsequent to the development of coastal zone management, as only in recent years has the unique quality of the shore been recognized and unders t.oo d , The tools for effecti ve managemen t of the coas ta I zone have been forged and a re a vai lable. They must be taken up and used to protect the public welfare.
Man has been lured to the borders of the oceans since earliest history in order to earn his Ii ve lihood or for
2 3
recreation. Authors have attempted numerous explanations for this attraction, ranging from the physical to psychological.
Irrespective of the motivating force, man still flocks to the beach in ever increasing numbers. By the 1970' s nearly 70\ of the u.s. population lived within 50 miles of the coasts, including those of the Great Lakes. 1 The 1980 census counted
19.1 million sai lors, 185.3 million swimmers, and 91 million fishermen among this country's population. 2 This powerful attraction transforms the coast from a local to a regional asset. The actions taken in managing the shore, therefore, have far reaching effects. The great demand for this limited resource also confers high property values on the coastal
lands. Thes e high va lues have in turn led to hi gh dens i ty development.
In the pas t the shoreline was viewed as a relati ve 1 y abundant commodity capable of supporting many diverse uses. 3
As the population grew and intensified in the coastal zone, available shoreline became scarce. The widely scattered homes on recreational beaches began to be crowded in by homes built on smaller lots. Eventually the homes were replaced by high-rise hotels and condominiums. Intense development of the beachfront resulted in reduced access to the beach for those unable to afford beachfront property. Closely spaced single family homes acted as a wall in such places as Malibu Beach,
California, effectively preventing the public from use of the 4
heach. 4 In south Florida massive concrete buildings el1minated access and destroyed the easy, tropical atmosphere. 5 This phenomenon took place gradually throughout this country and in many other parts of the world. It is not uncommon for the res i den ts of a coas ta I communi ty to obs erve thei r decreas i n q ability to use the shore and to think of it as a local problem. It is, however, a widespread fai lure of the market systems and the local government to provide for the common good of society. The same fundamental concern can he noted repeatedly, whether it is objection to a waterfront hotel tn
Newport, R. I., riots protesting the walls of condominiums and hotels blocking off the sea in Mallorca, Spain or objections to high density construction in Jacksonville Beach, ~lorida.
Not only has man continued to build within the coastal zone, he has increasingly done so without taking into consideration the extreme weather conditions found in this region. As a result, property damage figures in the U.S. have been continually rising.
In response to these concerns, the federal government enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972. This
legislation expressed recognition of the unique qualities of the lands within the coastal zone and the national interest in
them. In 1978 Florida enacted the Florida Coas tal Management
Act. The Act declared all state lands to fall within the 5
coastal zone due to the unique geography of the area. The federal government approved Florida's program in September
1981. The proposed redevelopment in Jacksonville Beach should be reviewed in light of these recent changes which have ocurred during the redevelopment planning process.
It is not the purpose of this paper to identify the best specific uses of the zone nor to make value judgements on the positions taken by the City government or its agencies, the developer or the various citizens groups involved. Its purpose is to identify important factors governing development of the beachfront property, to indicate trends and past history of similar areas, and to suggest types of development which may reflect the needs and desires of the public.
Chapter II of this paper is devoted to environmental issues and the problem of public access to the beach. The planner or concerned citizen involved in beachfront planning must be aware of these factors that impact so heavily upon the siting and types of buildings constructed on the waterfront.
Development that takes place without due consideration of these issues often results in side effects that would prohibit approval of the project or result in modification had the impacts been known prior to start of construction.
Chapter III considers the economic impacts and the 6
regulatory processes involved in beachfront construction in
Florida. Any public redevelopment such as planned by
Jacksonvi lIe Beach mus t be carefully planned to a ttai n the goa Is of the communi ty wh i Le f aci ng the rea Iiti es of the free market system. The needs and desires of the public and the profit motive of the developer must be fit into the guidelines and requ lations tha t govern cons tructi on with i n the coas ta 1 zone in the State of Florida.
The proposed redevelopment of Jacksonvi lIe Beach is the subject of Chapter IV. The history of the redevelopment effort is reviewed and the Conceptual Plan is discussed from the coastal zone management perspective.
Alternatives to the proposed development, considering the factors that make coas ta 1 deve lomen t unique, a re propos ed in
Chapter V. These are genera 1 in nature and intended to highlight ways the City may attain the ohjectives it deems appropriate, while heeding the important factors involved in beachfront development. CHAPTER II
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND PUBLIC ACCESS
The Beach
The City of Jacksonville Beach has one major asset upon which to capitalize, the only major urban beach in the
Jacksonville area. The Chamber of Commerce has long used "The
Wor ld' s Fines t Beach" as part of its pub La c a ty campaigns. The beach has, however, suffered from erosion which at times has resulted in virtually no dry sand at high tide. Erosion l.S a natural phenomenon and was noted in Duval County as early as
1834. 6 Beaches are a fluid body, with sands and sediments cons tan t ly moving. Man's ma j or problem has been fa i 1 ure to recognize this and build too close to the water, "a case of loving the amenity too much".7 In this case, man has aggravated the erosion by the construction of jettys at the mouth of thE>
St. Johns River starting in 1879. 8 Littoral transport of sand
(movement of sand along the beach by currents) l.n this area is primarily from north to south. The jettys interrupt this flow which would help replenish the beaches to the south, l.ncluding
Jacksonville Beach. Man's efforts to build seawalls have locked
7 8
up sand that would otherwise be used in the natural beach replenishment process. The walls themselves have actually apcelerated the erosion.
When a wave breaks on a beach, a t s enerqy 1:3 dissipated as it rolls up the slope. The calmer, more widely spaced summer
BEACH PROFILE
Beach
Dunes
Berm Breakers
Backshore Foreshore Bottom
Figure 1
waves tend to carry sand up the berm and deposit it there. The winter waves are usually more violent and closer spaced, generally carryinq sand away from the beach. Therefore
"summer" beach is u s u e Lk y q r o wa n q while a "w i n ce r " beach 1S e r o d Ln q , On a natural beach, sand dunes occur on the hackshore. In a violent storm the sea can overtop the herm and reach the dune. Whi Le the dune is ac ti n q as a na t.u ra I Le vee protectinq the land behind it, it gives up some of its sand. 9
This sand, along with sand from the berm, is carried to an
of fs ho re bar whe re it is dropped. Eventua lly the bar grows
large enough to force the waves to break over it, dissipating
some of their energy before reaching the beach. This is a
natural beach protection mechanism that slows further erosion. 9
Whe re man has f la t tened the dunes and bui 1 t s eawa lls he has
interrupted the natural balance of the beach and exposed his
structures to damage from the sea.
Bulkheads and seawalls give a false sense of security and
actually accelerate damage to the beach. 10 When the sea tops
the berm and strikes a seawall, instead of losing energy
rolling uphill against the dunes it bounces off the wall. As it
does, sand is scoured from the beach and the wall is
undermined. Water topping the wall drains back to the sea from
behind and returns to the sea under the foundation. This
accelerates the undermining process and the wall eventually
slides into the sea. 11 Jacksonville Beach has repeatedly
suffered this type of damage, resulting in the loss of property
and replacement of the walls. 1 2 The redevelopment area is
fronted by a seawall and the dunes disappeared long ago.
The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in a
beach renourishment project at the Jacksonville Beaches since
1965. This project was authorized by Section 301 of the Rivers
and Harbors Act of 1965 and provides for a 50 year 10
project life. 1 3 The federal share is 50% of the cost for the publicly owned beach. The State of Florida paid 75% and Duval
County the remai ni ng 25% of the loca 1 share. The project ca lIs for periodic renourishment after the f1rst 10 years at approximately 5 year intervals (if required).14 The design beach has a 60 foot berm at 11 feet above mean low wa ter. 15
This provides approximately 180 feet of dry sand beach at high tide.
The renour1shment of the beach created a problem of drifting sand for beachfront property owners in the project area. Prior to renourishment there was little dry sand on the beach. Due to the absence of the natural dune line, after renourishment the sand carried by the wind tended to deposit around the beachfront property as this was the first barrier encountered. This is a natural dune and beach building phenomenon but was viewed by the property owners as a nuisance. The City was therefore obliged to dedicate men and equipment to removing the sand from private property.
In order to solve this problem the City, in cooperation with the State Department of Natural Resources, is in the process of erecting sand barriers the entire length of the
City's beach to trap the sand. 1 6 Th1S is resulting in the rebuilding of the dun~s, some of which have new vegetation. The sand barriers consist of 4 X 4 posts w1th netting strung 1 1
between them. They are erected parallel to the seawall for convenience. The Department of Natural Resources apparently provided no professional guidance for proper placement for maximum effectiveness in relation to the prevailing winds.
This particular barrier is highly susceptible to vandalism and probably wi 11 ha ve a high mai n tenance cos t over time. Standard wood slat snow fencing, while initially more expensive, would prove more durable and effective in the long run. It would provide the additional bonus of channeling foot traffic around the dune area. The vegetation which is so vital to holding the dune in place will not survive constant foot traffic. The City has recently completed a series of wooden walkovers from the boardwalk to the beach which are generally as recommended by the Marine Advisory Program of the Florida Cooperative
Extension Service. 1 7
The City should continue its efforts to revitalize the beach itself as its most valuable resource. Rebuilding the dunes in front of the seawall will add to the store of sand available to the beach and reduce erosive damage. A continuous dune line along the beach will add to the aesthetics and provide storm protection for beachfront properties. The actual shape of the dune itself, by creating a low pressure zone on the downwind side, will trap sand and reduce the amount blown onto beachfront property. Revegetation of the dunes will hold the dunes in place and increase their sand trapping ability. 1 2
While it is the tendancy of resort beaches to rake the beaches clean of debris, natural flotsam such as s~aweed which is deposited at the high water mark actually benefits the beach.
The very flat beach common to this part of Florida offers few barriers to wind blown sand. Debris tends to trap sand causinq
the elevation to increase. Additionally, as the ma teri a l decomposes it releases nutrients which encourages the spread of
the vegetation holding the dunes in place. As the vegetation increases, the sand trapping capability increases and the dunes grow seaward. 1 8
A c o mp r e he n s a ve program of dune b u i Ld i n q , r e vo q e t a t j.o n , and e d u c a c a o n of residents and visitors alike is vital as t.h r
firs t step to the rebui ldi n q of an attract1 ve and protecti VI' beach. The public must understand the importance of dune protection and the need to use dune walkovers as a protective meas u r e , As the beach has a lread y eroded s i q ni f i can tl y s a n c « the last renourishment, in some areas these efforts may not hI, enough. The Corps of Engineers will consider building a n d
vegetating the dune line during the next renourishment and this s~ould be encouraged. 19 During renourishment "advance nourishment" is placed on the beach to compensate for anticipated erosion. (Fig 2.) This will permit the ve q e t.a t.a o u enough time to get a firm foothold on the dunes if properlY
ma n a q e d , Foot or vehicular traffic over the dunes damages thte
vegetation and reduces the e Le v a c a on of the dunes, o e a t r o y a n « 1 3
their integrity. Vehlcular traffic over and damage to the dunes is prohibited by state law.
Beach Renourishment
-,
Existing Beach Renourishment Advanced Nourishment
Figure 2 COASTAL STORM'"
Two basic types of storms threaten the waterfront of the project area, hurricanes and northeast storms. While Florida is one of the most hurricane prone areas of the country,
Jacksonville Beach is fortunate to lie in a relatively low risk zone. Since 1830 hurricanes have passed wi thin 50 mi les of
Jacksonville Beach on the average of once every seven years. 20
The last major hurricane to strike the area was Dora in 1964. 2 1
Since the probability of being struck by a hurricane is s i gni f i cant ly lower than other pa rts of the s tate, there is a tendancy to minimize the threat. Failure to plan and build appropriately courts disaster. While the death toll attributed to hurricanes has fallen due to improved warning systems, property damage has increased as man has failed to take the power of nature into account when developing coastal property.
( Fig. 3) High winds, tidal surge, heavy rainfall and wind driven waves combine to make a potent threat.
Low lying beach areas must be evacuated prior to hurr1canes to reduce the loss of life. A report prepared by the
Natural Resources Committee of the Florida House of
Representatives called the state's hurricane preparedness
14 - _. __ .~ -'.~ ..-""-- -_..._------
DAMAGE BY fiVE YEAR PERIODS IN MllltONS-of DOlLARS (VALUES ADJUSTED TO BASE 1957-59)
to.) N -0 ... 0 C» ~ N o o o o -~ o :t= o o o o o o o § § 8 ....rt~::c orn ::s ~- ~~ II C i_ :-.00. ~n I!.... Q Q~ t .... s» ::Stlll I' g.~ s >'3: It:e "t1 2.4+8 1-1 6c::.~ 't'~-;;Cl I~~~;:::-II~ ::rH trl a~ ~ l:li:\ttl6000 Plus Qlllt >,rn g-~.... ::s~ ti"gj rt = ~i = rtH Ii .... ~ Olllt ..::s C' rn ~~ ID)' .... 103 NtsJ -en
~ CIa o <.n -- N to.) W W • o g ~ 8 ~ 2 ~ 0 o 00000 8 g 8 '""8 DEATHS CAUSED IN THE UNITED STATES IV HUIUUCANES 1 6
"embarrassing".22 In 1979 an evacuation of the Jacksonville
Beaches was attempted upon the predicted approach of a hurricane, with less than complete success. 2 3 Had the hurri ca ne ac tually s truck the area wi th fu 11 force, loss of life would have been probable. Evacuation must be carried out early and in an organized manner. Heavy rains and tidal surge can result in flooded evacuation routes. This, coupled with accidents, trees and power lines knocked down by high winds, can trap residents unable to escape earlier. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration officials have continually expressed concern over population growth on barrier islands for this reason.
Eva cua tion f rom Jacksonvi lle Beach by road is pos s ib le only on three boulevards running west over Pablo Creek and its as s ociated mars hes into Jacks onvi lle. At present these three arteries must handle approximately 50,000 residents during evacuati on. The addi tiona 1 3,600 res idents pro j ected f or the redeve lopmen t area mus t ente r the evacuation route nea r th e major intersection of 3rd Street and Beach Boulevard. (Figure
4.) The traffic in this area can be anticipated to be heavy, with flooding occuring in the low lying portions of Beach
Boulevard. The additional traffic coming from the redevelopment area will add to the congestion. Prudent planners must keep emergency evacuation of residents in mind when considering the density of development to be permitted. 1 '7
MAp OF 1JIE RBDEVBLOPMBlrr INDICA'1'ING' . '. AREA FLOOD ZONliS FIGURE 4 18
Northeast storms pose a different problem. Generally of lesser intensity but much greater frequency and duration than hurricanes, these storms routinely do severe damage to the beach and waterfront structures. Northeasters occur on an annual hasis. They have repeatedly damaqed or des troyed bUlkheads, seawalls and ramps, and undermined or destroyed beachfront buildinqs. In 1962 for example, a storm struck the city with winds of 60-70 miles per hour. water levels rose to about 7 feet above mean low water. The resultant damages were so severe the area was dec lared an emergenc y di s as ter a rea.
Jacksonville Beach suffered damages estimated at $1,100,000. 2 4
The northeast storms of the past several years have caused premature erosion of the renourished beach. ~wo storms in
October of 1981 caused water levels of 4.7 feet above mean hiqh water. This is equal to the design height of the beach. On
November 13, 1981 a storm raised water levels to 4.9 feet, overtopping the berm and striking the dunes and seawalls. 2 5 The newly formed and vegetaied dunes suffered damaqe, setting back the dune restoration program. 2 6 Where the waves struck the seawall, water rebounding back to the sea caused scouring of the sand and "runouts". These depressed areas in the beach caused by high velocity runoff leave the wall more exposed to the sea and caUHe increasinqly rapid erosion. 2 7
The different types of problems caused by storms must be taken into consideration by planners. Northeasters can be 19
expected to continue to routinely cause heavy damage to the beach and structures built close to it. Damage to property set
back from the beach can be expected to be less severe.
Hurricanes are sporadic in occurence wi th the potential for
mas s i ve damage to the beach, beachf ron t structures and thos e
erected inland f rom the beach. Heavy rai ns coupled wi th wi nd driven waves overtopping seawalls and dunes and surging up
vehicle ramps will cause flooding in low lying areas. Part of
the redevelopment area is particularly vulnerable as it lies
wi thin the 100 year flood zone as determined by the U. S. Flood
Insurance Administration. (Fig. 4)
Public Access
The public has traditionally used the sea for many
purposes. As a result, the harbors and shores have been a
natural place for man to live. As far back as Roman times the
shore has been available for public use. To quote from
Justinian, " ••• By natural law itself these things are the
common property of all: ai x , running water, the sea, and with
it the shores of the sea." 28 Au thor i ty over the land in
England after the Norman conquest rested with the crown. The
Ki ng could convey property, inc I uding the shore, to pri va te
individuals. As this ocurred, development began to interfere
with traffic on the waterways, forcing the evolution of a 20
"public trus t" of t.h e s e areas. That is, ce rtai n rights were held "in trust" for the common use even though title to the property had been granted to a private owner. This dictom of
English law was inherited by the American colonies. Subsequent to the Revolution, all new states admitted to the Union adopted the same law concerning sovereignty due to the "equal footing" provision of the U. S. Constitution. 2 9 Therefore the lands lying beneath the sea from the limit of territorial waters to the mean high water mark have been sovereign lands. While the s tate may dispose of these lands, it mus t guard the pub lic trust. In Florida the courts recognized the public's right to use of the trust properties for boating, fishing and bathing as early as 1919 in Brickell v. Trammel. 3 0 Review of the acts of various legislatures and the courts indicates that the idea of the public trust is continually evolving to meet the pub La c need.
While the pUblic has a firmly established right to use of the tidelands, passage across the dry. sand beach is a different matter. These lands are often in private ownership and not open for public passage. As the population swells and continues to concentrate in the coastal areas, the demand for public use of the shore grows. Paradoxically, with the increased demand comes a rapid move to fence out the public and to maintain an atmosphere of exclusiveness. 3 1 Generally the more exclusive the property, the higher the value and potential profit. The 21
rights of the private landowner have been carefully guarded by the Constitution and the courts.
The development of the shoreline has been determined largely by the workinq of the market place. In other words, the shoreline goes to the highest bidder. 3 2 Neither the free market nor government has been effective in allocating the shoreline for the public good. 3 3 Too often government has been hiqhly vulnerable to vested interests. 3 4 Ultimately in places such as California, access became so restricted that the qovernmen t was forced to embark on an expens i ve program of purchasing land for public access and instituting land management policies restricting development in the coastal zone. 3 5 The recent publication of the California Coastal Access
GUide, 50 New Ways To Get To The Beach is an indicator of the extent of the problem in that state. 3 6
Denial of access has evolved in many ways. Large buildings or a series of smaller ones continuously a ti r e t.ch a n q along the beach, effectively block passage even though that may not be the intent of the owners. Conscious attempts to preclude access include walls and fences, "No Trespassing" and "No
Parking" signs. Even publicly owned access points have been fenced or purposely obscured by nearby property owners. Public accesses which are not positively identified as such but appear to be part of the contiguous private property are beinq 22
psychologica11 y deni ed to the pub La c , Fa1.1ure of qove r nmen t to provide adequate parking near public access points results in the inabi Iity of individuals dependen t upon the au tomobile to use the access. The transportation aspect of access has been carried even further as concern about access has qrown. In
California, portions of a major development have been held up unti 1 methods of eas i ng the potentia 1 conges tion on the mai n beach access road were implemented. 37 Another psychological barrier exis ts when access to the beach lies in an unpleas an t envi ronmen t.
Other parts of the country have attempted many different methods of res tricting access to the beach. New York and New
Jersey have used I. D. tags on a wide spread basis. These tags must be worn by beach users. Tags are often available to local residents free or at a reduced cost, while non residents pay a higher price. Other localities charqe non residents a parking fee while residents have access by means of city/town sticke~s. The fees involved in these access restrict1.on methods are us ua lly high enough to discourage some potential us e r s ,
There are valid arguments on both sides of the issue of restricted use. Those opposed to restrictions note that the beaches are publicly owned and therefore belong to all equally. Public funds are used for their maintenance.
Renourishment in Jacksonville Beach has been funded by the federal, state and county governments, for example. Federal law 23
prohibits renourishment of private lands with federal funds. In order for the Corps of Engineers to conduct the renourishment, all beachfront property owners we~e required to give up their riparian r a qh t.s to the property from the Erosion Control Line to the mean high water mark. This is in accordance with the
State of Florida Beach and Shore Preservation Act. In the redevelopment area the public lands extend from the seawall to the sea. (Fig. 5) Therefore the argument for the rights of public use in the redevelopment area are particularly strong.
On the other hand, as more people use a faci Iity such as a beach, the less value it has to each individual. 3 8 While it may be very enjoyable to use an uncrowded beach, an over crowded beach will deter potential users. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses 100 square feet per person as a planning guide for maximum beach use. While this may be an arbitrary figure, it is useful to consider a ceiling beyond which free access may become counter productive. The planning figure, combined wi th an es timated turn over of once per day and the assumption that beach users are willing to walk 1/4 mile from the access in either direction is useful when planning parking and other support facilities. 3 9
Another argument for controlled access deals with the locaI-regiona 1 nature of the beach. Whi Le the tide lands are public property and often other than local funding is used for beach renourishment, seawall restoration and other projects, _."._~ •. ~.~,*~ _-. -~. ~-'"---' . ---•."..._ - --.' - -~ '-'''---''- __••••
- -_._------~~ EXHIBIT A- PROJECT BOUNDARY SURVEY MAP ~~OWIt-JG SUQ.VE'( OF
A iM~d o~ lud l,.illl .. kiac ill. the Cltl of J.cuoaviUe Ie.ch. lNwal Coa:lty. norUa• .,r-e part1calarl, 4la:cr'!!tecl .. follClWll: ltel! .t tb. 1DursKt:loD .f the ~at:.d,. daht of vay 110e of )rd Street 5Dr't!Ii vteb tb. SoudMd,. rtpt .f way tiDe of b:. A...... IoTth; t!Mace Wonh 80-1"12- !.at. aloq tbe aatel Soueber-ll dpt of WlT liM of bt A~ $onb ad _ Ented, pt'DloaaaUoa eneof. 11n.24 feet to iu taten.edoa vitb dM: ~proz""te Ne. Blab V.ter Uoe • enabUs.!w4 .,. et....Uoa 2.t4 usa.c Dllba; dtea.c. Scrcherl,. .1"1 tb. uid approJl.!.:l,at. !lull. Biah ~.ur LI.a. the f.Uctri.q ebne coorau .. t1etcxe&: Cod"e 11. Sorth 01-40'''1· "t. tn.20 f_t; Coon. U. 50rdt O9·U·.l2- Weat. 981.s:. !e.ti Ccane 13. Sonb ot-U·W Wat. 92).6;1 feet u .. 1Dtenec.tioa vieb _ Eut.rl! proloaptiGD of th. lionb.d,. r!pt of va)' U.DII: o! 9eb A'YCUM Iot'd.; tbeDce South 8J~1·1I" Sat••loea the .aiel Sorthert,. rt....t of Va'! liM of to Avaae ~ liortb aDd ita E.ut.d,. pt'Dlo:aptiGD th.reof. 11'1.63 f_t co .. tatetsectld vith che aaid "-t.rt,. rtpt of vay lu. of If'd Itreet Sortll; t~c. Soutb 09-46'06" E.ut. aloOl" tho ••id Vated,. d~t of .ay l1u of )rd Street .nll. 211O.6S feet to the POur or 1ECtlI51!IC. Coata11l11l.1 71.t) Kr.-• .,n or Iue.
~c:.A.\..E. , .... 'co' OA."-t!.: UOV. \4, ,gal
rOQ,. : c. \"T'( 0\= .)""C...... CO'Ot..1VI\..\..E. e.E.AC.H. F'-OQ.\OA
A., , LA"'-l'\C. OCEA"'-l . :-.-:"'". ~:. -~~-._. . _..~"-~ ~:--..:. ~..:--- --::...~~~_.: ~'--;' ~~ -~--':.--~.: :.-~ - ~.: .~- .:..: =-.~ '-~,-: -: =..~-- -.:': .-: :-:.: :~.::..;-=:_~.:-:~-: :::~~. :~: .-::.:--:~-:--:. :-..~ :....--:.:..::::~-' ~ -~-:.--~:....-- :..~.:-~~~-~. ::.:. :-...-:.3.-:-.=>~: -:- - ,,_o.••_A'r~ _~ .._ ....Q,.. _ ..... ""'_ ._c.,...... _ a ... u... c. Ii ...... """ ;
"10$- , .....R W ''1•.,,' ..~·,.· ....·w ,.,..... W~·40·40·W .""'0" ~
~"Q•• _ ."',.,. ••71. .. "'0 ;... • c.a_ __ ~ . -:;:.~,..::-~~---?~~~~~~~..~~-_.~~.~=~:~~.;:::~=..~~~~-. --.....,.--.--- - ·e-I.o...... 08....., '''W ·.,..... ·I~ 1--==-1-1 "~·~_-I-I--.a;..-;:--I\...' =*=?---I-~""·_·W;;--I-..a:e;:----I Ie.M I II I ..c ...... -. e-..,.• .....c...._ c.a...••o"", t...... I' 'T.I ~ ~ H I!,:, II 3' I I -r II ,,! i; "3,iii ; I; i I 21 I (;') c: ~---e--- L __ .~ L __ ---l L __ -.1 L_,;--1 L :o •. .,•.-c~'~ L~~~ L __~ L __--i el' :. - tv "---1 ,----, !- ~ V1 : ~z ~I '---I ,---. 1----, '---I -~ 1-...... ,-·1-: . I : I ! : ,--II '! I I' • I .,. I - I I - -.. -' .' I~ .1 ;:-~ 1:-- 1 ... !; 1 !~I I~I~ I~I I~I gl I~~I I~ I :gl Igi ~z ~2 I"" : ! - .::: ""l I· I 5;: IZ 42. I 'Z I I - I':?' ~ ~ ~~ I .. I ::! l: 'Ii :: 1>1.., ! I =1 i,;, :; I I :: I• I ..~ I J .., L J ::: LI -' : ':: L __J i L __ --.J : L __...J 1 L __~ i L __J z L__ 2 -- 2 --~ 3 : 1 I--l}1--1 i i--l ~ j~=--l: I ~~~i ~ I~~'"" l rj--l ~ l--l ~ :
4 ~ • .... 1~1i U -: r. .... I~ ::1 I'" 1::1 -:~: I;;' ~:-;·~;";'31£1 11'1 I!I .;!::: .;;,.::' .! ::;... €!..: 33 ?"3 Ii: i I I 1 I i I '1 I I II I I' I' . L -----l _i -1 L __ ---l L __ --.J L __ -J '------' --.J f--
:..~ _~- :.' '.' i' .. • .:.;~ .....= • ~ I II -=-----_------:----;~~~------r----.==--r-----,------;----r----J'+.-- '-'- ..o,·....·o.·£. 'Z..,.o- .... · .. - I I I IJ POI~~ 0"'- ~.:~11o,.Ia..:".,l6
0_:' - ~ r'l. ;;: .... ~'":: .... ;;:.'E:='- ... ;;(&': ~ ... -".: -: - --~ '";:.- -~ ~_.:..'- ,-,==.:1,:- '-_-! ti ~~ ~ ~ j •. -'=;;" '::.:.. .. '"''': - -:.;:; ...... -:- ~ _.-fl«M'tHlASTfLOIUDASUIIYEYOM.,IfC.."'...... 'J. _COMOIlA"...... IIt.¥O. ~LI•• ~2D'1e I ..·nl_ ~. -- ---_._------25
the community must bear the burden of other expenses. Lifeguard services, parking and rest room facilities, crowd control and security must be provided at city or town expense. Since the local gove rnmen ts are mandated by their cons tituents to protect local interests, it is not surprising that there have been attempts in some areas to protect beaches from over crowding by "outsiders".40
Jacksonville Beach was originally laid out in a classic grid pa t tern, wi th s treets running eas t-west and nor th-south each block. While there are disadvantages to this system arising from dedication of a greater proportion of the land to roads than to productive uses and creation of excessive intersections, it has provided one distinct advantage. The end of virtually every east-west street ends in a public access to the beach. The only exception to this is where the street ends have been gi ven up to a developer. The replacement value of this city owned land is very high. There has been some
"trading" of access property with developers in order to facilitate building the various condominiums along the beach.
Instead of having an access each block, for example, the city may end up with none at the end of one street and a double wide access at the other end of the development. While on the surface this appears to offer the same va 1 ue to the pub lic, it does not. The accesses are primarily used for foot traffic to the beach. Foot traffic requires a very limited width for free 26
access, therefore expansion of the width of an access may be of little value to the public. Only if the expanded access can be used for a s1gnificant amount of public parking or for a mini park in a densely populated area can the trade be justified on the basis of equal value. Even so, the residents that must now walk an extra block for access will consider their access depreciated. When several "trades" take place within the same area, the local resident may find he now has to walk many blocks to find an access. This can become a major detraction f or mote Is and others that sell proximity to the beach as an attraction or depend upon the beach users for their business.
Therefore, while the city retains an equal amount of beach frontage, property values of off-beach property in the area can diminish, ultimately reducing the tax base. The community has, in effect, subs idized the deve lopmen t at the expens e of the public.
One must only look north and south to see what a s trategic commercia 1 pos i tion Jacksonvi lIe Bea ch commands. The tourist or vacationer desiring to enjoy the advantages of both beach and city has no other options in the area. Nor th of the
St. Johns River is sparsely populated with no major tourist fac iIities. To the south the neares t resor t communi ty is St.
Augustine, some 30 miles distant. The other beaches in the area are primarily residential communities with less public beach access than Jacksonville Beach. 27
Protection of this outstanding advantage should he one of the Ci ty' s top priorities. Management and protection of the beach mus t he i ncor porated in the mas te r plan. Whi Le it is common for many to get e xci ted about maj or proj e c ts and thei r impacts, it has been the piecemeal actions occuring gradually that have caused the greatest loss of access and damage to the coast. 4 1 CHAPTER III
ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND THE REGULATORY PROCESS
Economic Impacts
What makes the shoreline so unique and creates the difficulties experienced in allocating this scarce resource?
The free enterprise system lets the market set the price for property. Where there is a great demand for the land, as at the s ho re, the price is elevated to whe re on ly the wea 1 thies t can afford it. Less "efficient" uses of the land s'uc h as single f ami ly homes or open spaces a re gradually forced out. Th is phenomenon may be ai ded by the ad va lorum ta x s ys tern whi ch mandates that the property be taxed at the highest potential value. Developers, in search of the maximum return on their investment and capitalizing upon local government's preoccupation with raising the tax base, build the highest yield structures possible. In most cases this has been high-rise hotels or condominiums. The economic justification of these structures is found in the expanded tax yield and efficiency with which many units in a small area may be provided with,necessary services.
28 29
Economic impact assessments of new projects rarely take into cons ideration the tota 1 cos ts of the pro j ect. These cos t.s can be broken down into two general areas. The first are easily quantifiable costs that should be identified 1.n any good economic impact as,sessment. Included would be added demands on the water and sewage sys terns, increased police and fire p r o t.e c t.a o n requirements, additional parking and transportation
I costs, expansion of the library facilities and other munic1.pal services. Careful analysis of these costs alone is enough in some cases to outweigh the additional tax revenues from the project.
Beachfront development entails the quantification of some additional factors, however. Included are loss or reduction of access to the beach, loss of scenic views, increased crowdinq of the beaches, and dimi nished qua Iity of Ii f e , The do LLa r value of these is not so readily measured. Historically the beaches have offered "the cheapest and most enjoyable recreationa 1 us es for large numbers of peop Le :' , 4 2 "Recreation is a lrea d y one of the larges t and fas tes t-qrowi ng us es of t.h r- coastal zone and will increase in importance. ,,43 If the demand for this use 1.S so great, then the value of access must be very high, even though a dollar fiqure may be difficult to develop.
Loss of scenic views, increased crowding of beaches due to high dens i t y deve lopmen t and reduc tion of the perceived qua lity of life are similarly difficult to quantify yet have been of great 30
importance to the public. The F lorida Depa rtmen t of Na tura 1
Resources, Division of Recreation and Parks surveyed residents of Florida in 1978-79. Respondents were asked what they thought were the rna j or recreational problems in F lorida. Among thei r major concerns were restricted access to the coast, developmen~ threatening beaches, and overcrowding of the shoreline recreational facilities. 4 4 Planners therefore should recognize the value the public assigns to these factors and the increasing demand for public use of the shore, weighing them against the financial rewards of potential developments.
Other costs to the public have historically been ignored when considering the potential ad van tages. of coastal development. If a hotel is contemplated for the waterfront, the local government weighs the potential tax revenues from the hotel against what it will cost the community to provide services for the hotel such as increased fire and police protection. The costs to property owners in the vicinity for flood damages caused by seawalls or foundations which accelerate e r o a'Lon and subsequent flooding have not been included in the total. Not only will those residents whose homes are flooded suffer from the effects of the construction of the hotel, but flood insurance premiums for the area will rise, penalizing still other residents. 4 5 If a publicly owned seawa 11 pro tects the hote1, then the cos ts of mai n taini n q and replacing the wall when damaged by the sea becomes a public 31
subsidy of the hotel. 4 6 Therefore the costs of the hotel are
partially borne by the public. Planners failing to take this
into consideration do not fully serve the pUblic interest.
The term "h a e h e s t and bes t use of the land" is often
cited when discussing the trend toward high density development
of the waterfront. "Highest and best use" is defined by real
estate experts as "The use which will produce the greatest
amount of amenities or profit••• ".47 This term has been used
as justification for reaping the greatest possible profit
irrespecti ve of the costs to the public and impact on public
trus t lands. Thes e prof i ts have been taken at the expense of
the public, in some cases, due to a failure to fUlly understand
the way land values are accrued. Land values depend on expected use. 4 8 If the property is zoned for multi-family dwellings, it
1.S reasonable for the property owner to expect to be able to
cons truc t multi-fami ly dwe IIinqs or to se11 his property for
that purpose. Should the municipality condemn his property for
c a t.y use, he must, by law, be reimbursed for the reasonable
value of that property. Determination of the reasonable value h es been the crucial point. The landowner assumes he must be
reimbursed for the value of the "highest and best use", for the
greatest potential profit from his land. Neither the wording of
the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution nor the
interpretation of the courts implies that the landowner must be
allowed nor reimbursed for the most beneficial use of his 32
land. 4 9 The city may calculate the value of the property based upon a less dense mUlti-family development in this example. It should be noted that retroactive changes in zoning ordinances designed to reduce property values for condemnation purposes have been struck down by the courts. 5 0
Enforced zoning regulations have the strongest effect
upon the value of property. It has been said that II (zoning) is where the payoff is thes e days ".51 If a property owner can purchase a property zoned for low density use and convince zoning officials to revise the permitted usage to high density, he has increased the value of his property significantly.
Should restrictions be placed on the development of beachfront property, the value may be diminished in proportion. 52
Correspondingly, the value of similar property without restrictions should go up. A change in zoning to prohibit multi-family structures on the waterfront will reduce the value of vacant lots which can now be used only for s inqIe fami ly dwellings. EXisting condominiums become more exclusive and therefore more desireable.
Another aspect of zoning the waterfront concerns the
is s ue of high-ris e buildi n q s , High-rises create II de trimental
externalities" which impact on the pub Ld c I s enjoyment of the b a a c h , A detrimental externality may be defined as damages incidental to an activity or object. 5 3 The tall buildings 33
cast shadows on the beach, interfere with access, can result in overcrowding the beach and elimination of parking, and aggravate erosion of the beach. High-rise development is attracted to the beach because the de ve loper can eas i ly sell
the units because of the desirability of an ocean view and easy access to the beach. If the zoning ordinances permit hiqh-r1se construction along the beach, the community is sanctioning the
negative externalities in order to derive the greatest tax
revenue from the beachfront lots. High-rises that have severe impacts such as elimination of beach access can reduce the
value of property lying inland. This can cause a corresponding
reducti on in tax revenue f rom the inland prope r ty. Agai n , this is a factor seldom considered when calculating the costs of waterfront development and its impact on the public.
Creative use of zoning can eliminate the problem. For example, if ocean view and easy access to the beach is the attraction of waterfront property and sells condominiums, then
low dens i ty, single S tory cons tructi on wi th gene rous access points along the waterfront should have little i.mpact on the value of condominiums built landward. They would have only slightly diminished view and a c c e s a , The tax base is expanded as more properties enjoy the advantage of ocean view and access, up to .the point where facilities become overcrowded. If o n e were considering ocean view and access alone, zoning 34
wou ld requi re tha t the hei gh t of bui ldi ngs be p r o por tiona 1 to the dis tance f rom the beach. The further f rom the beach, the greater the permissable hei gh t. The resultan t step arrangemen t would always permi t some floors of the landward bu i, ldings to have an ocean view until the huildings rose to the maximum allowable height or the limits of reasonable access to the beach. Large bUildings can be designed in this "s tep" arrangement. If they spread along the beachfront, however, they may impede access.
Where the shoreline is straight, as in the project area, imaginative uses of zoning coupled with public investment in open space can actually lengthen the "taxable shoreline", repaying the public i nves tmen e, (Fi g. 6) An artificially irregular beachfront due to park areas reaching back from the actual beachfront permits an extension of the frontal area.
Density of development as re la ted to high-rise construction is extremely important when planning beachfront deve lopme n t, but there a re other fac tors to cons i de r , When determining the most efficient yields to soc1ety from waterfront property, one may divide uses into three catagor i e s , Thes e are water de penden t, wa ter re lated, and non water related. Water dependent uses are activities which must be located on the water such as swimming, boating and fishing.
\'1 a ter re la ted uses are those which need not be loca ted 35
-----...------...... - .....- ...... - ...- ...... -..-• ..,--~ ..... ~... ::w= ...... NATURAL SHORELINE~ 1 ( ) ,7 l' ..,",,' (... _~\ I EXPANDED SHORELINE
LENGTHENING THE TAXABLE SHORELINE
FIGURE 6 36
on the water but profit from such a location, for example, hotels and restaurants. Non water related use is an activity which has no relationship to a waterfront location, such as an auto repair shop. Considering the redevelopment area from this perspective, the water dependent uses should front the b e a c h; water related uses could be located along the beach and in the area immediately inland, and the non water related uses should be located along 3rd Street.
Historical processes have been under-representing important social va lues when allocating the shoreline, however. 5 4 This has res u I ted in the forcing out of some waterfront uses that are valuable to society. While it may be enjoyable to sit at an outdoor cafe overlookinq the beach and enjoy the scenery and ocean air, the cost of land zoned for more dense development prohibits such a use. A beach club with an off-the-beach sailing facility cannot afford the necessary property without the community making special provision for such an activity. Uses such as sailing, surfing and wind-surfing offer other benefits to the community in the form of beneficial externalities (benefits attained by those who have not paid for them). In this case people enjoy watching the colorful activity. It therefore serves as an attraction to the area. The cafe owner profits from increased business, and supporting businesses move into the area. Only by special
measures can the community attract and keep these types of 37
of activities along its waterfront. Zoning must provide space for them with the recognition that, though they may not yield high rates of tax revenue a n themselves, their benefit to the community in providing the facility for the use of the public, improving the quality of life, and the enhancemen t of nearby properties makes them a welcome addition. Special tax incentives can be used to stimulate uses that serve as an attraction to touris ts and residents a like. However care mus t be taken not to "over boutique n or saturate the area wi th attractions of limited value and reduce its usefulness. CONSTRUCTION IN THE COASTAL ZONE
The hazards of extreme weather conditions, erosion and
corrosion, require stringent waterfront planninq and control.
The State of Florida has a number of regulations governing
beachfront construction. All are based upon the premise that
the natural beach system represents a tenuous state of
equilibrium and should not be disturbed. 5 5 The firs t 0 f th e s e
was the Coastal Setback Line program under Chapter 161 of toe
Florida Statutes. This provided for prohibition of construction
on the seaward side of a line 50 feet inland of the mean high
water line, except with an approved waiver. It was initially
enacted to prevent excavation or construction within an area subject to severe 100 year storm surge or other predictable
wea ther condi tions. The program bas i ca 11y conce n trates on the
protection of sandy beaches.
More important in Jacksonville Beach is the Coastal
Construction Control Line. 5 6 Th~s is intended to control both hazards to people, property and the beach-dune systems. 5 7 The
Coastal Construction Control Line is established for each
county within the State, and in the project area runs over 10
feet inland from the existing seawall. (Fi g. 5 ) The
38 39
legislative intent of the law is to protect the beach-dune
system, any proposed structure and adjacent properties and not
necessarily to define a seaward limit for upland structures. 5 8
Due to the advanced erosion suffered by the beach in the past,
the new dune line has been growing just in front of the
seawall. The trend is for the secondary dunes to grow across
the wall. Prudent planning in the project area calls for
setback adequate to permit the dune system to rebuild and provide an protective barrier extending over the existing
seawall.
The Bureau of Beaches and Shores, Florida Department of
Natural Resources, recommends that all buildings and beachfront
structures be designed by professionals experienced in hurricane resistance design. "The design and construction of
exposed seafront structures is probably one of the most
exacting tasks confronting the modern day professional. Founded
on a constantly changing coastal topography, beachfront
s tructures are expos ed to a combination of na ture 's migh ties t
forces, as wind and wave act in concert under some of the worst
s tructura I loadi ng condi tions ima ginab Le , Floating debris may pound the foundations while swift water currents scour the
supporting material from around the base. Wind and wave acting
separately or together may exert impulse or continual dynamic
loads on a s tructure canti levered up from the ground, of ten
with horizontal projections as well. The possibility of 40
harmonic amplification and flutter must be considered plus many other sources of stress familiar only to the design specialist in this professional area."59 Beachfront structures should be constructed to be able to withstand wind and waves exerted by a
100 year storm as a minimum. "All new construction should be located substantially landward of the active beach-dune system. The fact that exis ting structures on adjacent property are located too far seaward is a very weak excuse for subjecting a new structure to the unnecessarily high risk of a similar ill advised 10cation."60
Weathering and corrosion are major problems along the beachfront. Improper selection of materials or construction methods can result in prematurely deteriorated structures.
Deterioration can lead to structural weakness and/or loss of aesthetic appeal. Ocean front hotels on Jacksonville Beach have a history of shortened life spans for exposed central air conditioning equipment, for example. 6 1 City zoning and cons trueton codes tha t take thes e effects into Cons ideration and are rigidly enforced can prevent expensive and critically located buildings from becoming blighted liabilities. CHAPTER IV
THE JACKSONVILLE BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
REGIONAL SETTING
Jacksonville Beach is a city of approximately 16,000 residents located about 12 miles east of the central business district of Jacksonville, Florida and 20 miles south
Georgia. (Fig. 7) It is one of a group of small cities known locally as the "Jacksonville Beaches". Situated on the northern portion of a barrier is land which extends from .the St. Johns
River in the north to St. Augustine Inlet to the south,
Jacksonville Beach serves as the major beach facility serving
Jacksonville. Transportation to that city is restricted to 3 bou levards, Atlantic, Beach and J. Turne r Bu tler. Trave 1 to the north is restricted by the ferry service spanninq the St. Johns
River. Immediately south is the residential and qolf resort community of Ponte Vedra in St. ,Johns County. The population density south of Jacksonville Beach is extremely low until reaching St. Augustine, some 30 miles d~stant.
Northeast Florida has been primarily a summer vacation
41 42
·', .' ...... ". . '.. ~, .~.
Greater Jackaonvflle City Umlts
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 7 43
area, attracting visitors principly from northern Florida and
southern Georgia. The central portion of Jacksonville Beach I s waterfront attracted the majority of the beach visitors due to its boardwalk fronted by concessions and amusements. Failure to maintain and upgrade these properties coupled with erosion of the beach led to the dec Ii ne of the touris t bus i ness. 62 The other Beaches in the area do not have the same public facilities and therefore have not attracted as great a number of vis i tors. They serve principly as res identia I communi ties which have maintained an almost exclusively low-rise character while Jacksonville Beach has attracted hiqh-rise condominiums and hotels. This high-rise development has taken place in a random fashion and threatens to absorb virtually the entire waterfront. The redevelopment area is unique as it is the only sizeable piece of beachfront property along the northeast coast of Florida that is available for development. It has the added advantages of close proximity to population centers, superior transportation and all utilities in place. THE HISTORY OF THE REDEVELOPMENT EFFORT
In 1977 the City declared the project area to be a slum and blighted area and eligible for redevelopment under the
State Community Redevelopment Act of 1969 as set forth in
Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes. Subsequently the
Redevelopment Agency was established with the goals of planning and administering the redevelopment effor t. The initial objectives of the agency were:
a) To achieve the improvements through private sector involvement; b) To provide the necessary pUblic ~mprovements in the area; c) To encourage the development of a sound commercial core; d) To create a revitalized boardwalk area attractive to families and visitors; e) To develop a mixed-use urban environment where the residents could live, work and shop; f) To restore the natural amenities of the beaches through the development of public parks and recreation areas. 6 3
The Agency advertised nationally in 1979 to attract a developer to work with it in creating the plan and developing the area. A
44 45
prospectus was mailed to interested parties, deliniatinq the
Agency I S goa Is. This prospectus cited the ad va ntages of the proposed redevelopment area such as 2,700 feet of beachfront property located in an area of famous resorts, mass transportation, and the availability of utilities and s ervi c e s , It cited the potential for a 400 room luxury hote1,
230,000 square feet of mall space, a high-rise office building and 1,581 condominium units for the area. Financing for the project was to be accomplished by the use of "incremental" tax revenues under the State Community Redevelopment Act. That is, any increased taxes resulting from redevelopment of part of the area would be placed in a Pe c i a l fund to continue redevelopment in other portions of fthe project area.
The advertisements attracted 12 developers, 2 of whom sUbsequently submitted proposals. One proposal consisted solely of condominiums. This was rejected in favor of the plan proposed by Striton Properties of Jacksonville, Florida for a mixed use development compatible with" the goals outlined in the prospectus. 6 4 In January 1981, the City Council expressed its disapproval of a proposed contract with Striton properties to act as the sole developer. In spite of the lack of political backing for it, the Redevelopment Agency executed the contract. 6 5
The redevelopment project has been marred by controversy 46
since its inception. The Redevelopment Agency staff was fired for oppos i tion of the selection of S tr i ton Prope rties as the sole developer. In 1979 the redevelopment area was expanded to its present 24 block size, spurring further controversy. The initial plan was rejected by the City Council for permittinq excessively dense construction. The Council then requested that the density be revised to a maximum of 45 units per acre. 6 6
The revision later presented did not satisfy the density objections. On December 15, 1982 the final plan was rejected by the Ci ty Counci 1. Under the con tract with S tr i ton Prope rties either party is free to withdraw from the contract with reimbursement due the contractor for his planning expanses. 6 7
Due to the inte ns i ty of di s agreeme nt 0 ver the proposed redeve lopmen t, the communi ty has bee n polari z ed into a numbe r of groups. All are extremely frustrated with the inability to resolve the situation and generally bla~e others for the impasse The developer has been bamed for trying to push for the highest density to make the greatest profit. Skeptics also theor i ze tha t the e xpa ns ion of the i ni tia 1 rede ve lopmen t area wa s an attemp t by the de ve loper to con trol mar eland. The developer's financial problems with other holdings have led some to the suspicion that he may not be able to secure the r e q u a re d f i nanci ng, and if he does he ma y on 1 y complete the high yield portion of the project and abandon the rest. 6 8 The 47
property owners in the redevelopment area feel that their property has been under a cloud for 5 years, depriving them of their rights under the Constitution to the enjoyment and use of their property. Physical deterioration of the area has accelerated during this period resulting in the abandonment or gross underutilization of the properties. There is a feeling among many tha t high dens i ty developmen t in the area is a threat to the quality of life at the beach. The Beaches
Preservation Society and others, sharing the concerns over the threat to the quality of life, shadows on the beach, and res triction of acces s , took an acti ve role in opposition to high densl.ty development. 6 9 The opposition has been characteri zed by some as the "No Growth" element. This appears to be contrary to research conducted which found no group actually opposing development. There is a general agreement that something must be done to remove the blight, provide property owners with a reasonable use of their property while enhancing the quality of life and increasing the tax base. The inability to successfully carry out the redevelopment effort has been due to an initial misconception by the Redevelopment
Agency of what types of development best serve the public interest, failure of the various parties to properly market their positions, and miscommunication. A common failure of government planning is to "unveil an entire plan at the end of a n essentially private, 'professional' process, and then try to sell it to the public and elected officials".70 This 48
appears to be a classic case.
THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN-
The Conceptual Plan of November 15, 1982 bears a striking resemblance to the type of development proposed by the
Redevelopment Agency in its prospectus to potential developers. (Fig. 8. ) All the essential ingredients are included, high density condominiums, a mall, a high-rise offi~e towe rand hote1. It therefore appea rs th a t th e de ve lope r conceived his plan in accordance with the initial desires expressed by the Agency. Whether the Aqent;:y accurately reflected the needs and desires of the community is debatable.
Unfortunately, the long time elapsed s~nce conception of redevelopment has spanned a time of major change in economic conditions and potential government aid. Federal government programs that existed at the commencement of the project have been eliminated or drastically reduced, restricting the options available. The stage has been set for potentially unbridled development born of frustration. '!'he temptation to accept any solution to a difficult problem should be avoided. Once large and expensive bUildings have been erected, the results are permanent.
The specific objectives of the Agency dictated its EXHIBIT C- CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
[ Iii
; i.e=. o [ ;\0 ...... - 1 11 Ill, MASTER PLAN 13 nI1....J n ---~ {,! --_J r=c~~ _0 r 17 O~I~0 .J • :t:. c: _0...,._ :: .i:r 00 SECTIOX A,_-\. rLrw SECTION B·B ru1....J
STRITOX PROPERTIES/PADro. DE\'ELOI'ER THmfPSO:'\:. \'E:l.IL:LETT. ST.-\IXBACK & JACI{SOX\TILLE rW;, SEA .Iacksonyllk. FlorIda ASSOCIATES, IXc. .-\1~("IIITF(''f'" AtI"nta. Georgia 50
conception of wha t types of de ve lopmen t would be bes t in the redevelopment area. It determined that a family oriented boardwalk was desirable as was a mixed use area where residents could live, work and play. However, the Plan seems to be largely oriented to the residents of the redevelopment area.
Beach access for others has been restricted to the 3 walkways in the 8 block beachfront, 2 of which lie between large condominiums. These accesses may not appear to be pUblic accesses to persons unfamiliar with the area and therefore would be psychologically denied to them. This factor could be overcome by clearly marking the accesses with signs. Public parking appears to be limited, located in only one section of the area and not easily located by visitors. Although there is a p ub La c parking garage, it is possible that mall shoppers could absorb a large portion of the parking it provides. Many potential beach users may find that the parking garage and surroundings do not provide an atmosphere conducive to enjoyment of the beach. A mother with small children having to park in a parking garage and walk through the garage and adjoining parking lots or mall carrying normal beach paraphenalia probably would not soon repeat the experience.
Projected density is high. The population of the area is planned to grow from 400 to 4000. The resultant vehicle traffic would also be greatly increased. When considering the impacts of a deve lopmen t buiIt on an inland location, the impa cts of 51
increased traffic may be significantly less than alonq the shore. Traffic may radiate from an inland development in as much as a 360 degree arc, whereas along the shore the same amount of traffic must be handled in half that arc. The increased traffic will be carried by 3rd Street, the main artery of Jacksonville Beach, Neptune Beach and Ponte Vedra.
Traffic will enter and exit the redevelopment area just north of the major 3rd Street and Beach Boulevard intersection. Major traffic problems may be anticipated. The State originally determined that the redevelopment was a "Development of
Regional Impact" (DRI), a development which would have a substantial effect on more than one county. 71 The Northeas t
Florida Planning Commission concurred with t: h i s finding, largely based upon its belief that traffic impacts on 3rd
Street would be severe enough to interfere with traffic flow to and from Ponte Vedra. 7 2 Upon appeal by the Redevelopment
Agency, the State reversed its decision and declared the proj ec t was not a DRI.· Irres pecti ve of whe ther or not the impacts on neighboring counties would be severe, it seems clear that the residents of Jacksonville Beach would have to contend with heuvy traffic in the immediate area.
Open space is an interesting factor in the Conceptual
Plan. The specifications for redevelopment of the area call for at least 20% of the site to be devoted to open space. Of the open space, 40% mus t be dedicated to public use. 73 Review of 52
the Project Boundary Survey shows that the limits of the redevelopment area extend from the west side of 3rd Street to the high water line to the east.(Fig. 5.) The area of the beach from the high water line to the seawall, which is already in the public domain, would satisfy the open space requirement and no open space need be provided in the rest of the project area. Therefore there would be no additional area made available to the public, counter to the specific objective which called for the development of public parks and recreation areas.
High density use as proposed in the Plan has other impacts. Large buildings tend to change the atmosphere and an impact on the "small town" atmosphere that exists could be anticipated. Concern has been expressed that attracting a large number of wealthy new residents will change the local power structure and reduce the current residents I control over the municipal government. Carter, in The Florida Experience, found that Floridians prefered their cities to be more "gardenlike" with "an atmosphere characterized by a certain openess, lightness, and freedom••• (that) is lost to massive high-rise development which, if it belongs anywhere, is more appropriate to urban centers of the north." 74 Echoes of those feelings were heard in opposition to the Jacksonville Beach Plan. 7 5
When the rest of Duval County voted to consolidate with the
Ci ty of Jacksonvi lle, the Beaches retained thei r independen t 53
governments. This same independence of spirit has been part of
the res is ta nce to the Plan. Res idents of Jacks onvi lle Beach
like their way of life, which is slower, more relaxed and
informal than that found in Jacksonville. Many res idents questioned whether striving for a major change in the tax base by high density development is worth losing their way of life.
Water has become a critical factor in any major development. This is particularly true for beachfront communities. Salt water intrusion into the aquifer can result
from natural seepage, drainage from canals, special cons truction techniques, tidal overtopping, and wi thdrawal of wa te r fas ter than it can na tura 11y be replaced. 76 Once the aquifer is contaminated beyond use, the community must then pipe in water from distant sources. This is expensive and the
communi ty no longer controls its wa ter source. The Plan does not single out water as a significant problem and only states
"The propos ed deve lopment wi 11, however, i mpa ct the e xis ti ng wa terand sewer s ys terns by creati ng subs tantia 1 increases in wa ter and sewage generations " 77 The Plan shows water consumption projected to go from 144,325 gallons per day to
601,638 GPD. Jacksonville Beach already experiences salt water
intrusion in City wells at the present pumping rate. 7 8
Increased water use may require the City to seek expensive
alternate water sources. In the past federal aid was often
available to help finance expensive infrastructure such as 54
wa ter and sewage treatmen t sys tems. The a vai lability of this aid has become extremely limited and the City should be careful when considering development which will overextend existing capacity in these areas.
The Plan makes no special provision to exploit the beach as an attraction for the City. There is nothing to attract the tourist. In order to capitalize upon the unique advantage
Jacksonvi lle Beach has in nor t-heas t F lorida, touris m s hou ld be an important part of any beachfront redevelopment. If the Plan were to be implemented, the region would have no commercial/recreational beach and the City would lose its opportunity to earn significant income from beach related ac tivities. Tourism of f ers a number of advantages. The touris t makes a minimal impact on the environment. Activities such as strolling the beach, sunning, and swimming require little in municipal investment compared to other activities. Tourists are generally willing to pay a higher price to enjoy these activities than the local resident. 7 9 Jacksonville Beach enjoys a climate favorable to tourism for 9 or more months a year. A high volume of tourists pass through Jacksonville daily on their way south and should Jacksonville Beach develop attractive waterfront facilities, it could potentially lure many of these travelers for an overnight stay. people attending events in the Jacksonville area could be attracted to
Jacksonville Beach in increasing numbers. While tourism must be 55
an important part of waterfront development due to the income potential, excessive dependence upon tour~sm can result in over crowding of facilities, excessive traffic, and an increase in the cos t of Iiving f or res idents. Ba lanced and varied use is required for successful development in this area.
The attraction of the beach is powerful. The greates t attraction occurs during the daylight hours, however. The mos t efficient use of the redevelopment area should include facilities which will extend the attraction into the evening.
These facilities need not be peculiar to beachfront development as the uniqueness of the beach is somewhat lost wi th darkness. The faci lities should not be placed di rectlyon the waterfront unless they are water dependent or related uses. Sugges ted us es mi gh t be theaters, res taurants , ca f es, shops, bowling alleys and miniature golf courses, which would be in keeping with the goa 1 of an area attracti ve to f ami lies and visitors.
Financing of the project was to have been under the
State 's incrementa 1 tax program. The City intended to iss ue bonds to raise funds for the initial phase of the redevelopment with foilowing stages to be funded with the increased tax revenues generated from the improved portions of the project area. The City has neither issued the bonds nor complied with the state regulations governing eligibility for incremental 56
funding. SO
The Conceptual Plan does show the results of coordinated planning from the view of the developer. Some waterfront access has been provided, the area has a smooth internal traffic flow plan and the project area is oriented toward the pedestrian.
Higher value uses are found on high value lands, high-rise condominiums along the beach and retail/commercial uses along the 3rd Street frontage. Parking is relegated to the lower value land that fronts neither the beach nor 3rd Street. Land utiIi zed in the s tree t grid whi ch currently exis ts is more effic1ently used in the Plan.
The advent of the Plan coupled with other high-rise deve lopmen t along Jacksonvi lIe Bea ch has caused some concern that the loss of public access and parking may jeopardize future renourishment of the beach by the Corps of Engineers. 8 1
When the beach renourishment project was initially implemented, the easy access of the public to the beach was a critical factor in its justification. 8 2 The public's ability to drive a rvd park on the beach was also important. Subsequent to that time driving on the beach has been prohibited and accesses have been lost. The Plan would result in the loss of still more accesses and an impact on parking. The City should be very cautious about any actions which might jeopardize federal assistance for beach renourishment. 57
It appears that the Conceptual Plan is probably too dense and will unfavorably impact the community. The scale of the buildings within the project will not blend easily into the surroundi ng area. The mas s i ve bui ldi ngs propos ed wi 11 soar 20 s tories into the ai r and pro j ect upwa rd like an is land a mo nq the predominantly low-rise buildings in the vicinity. Winds from the northeast will be channeled through the gaps in these tall buildings which will increase the wind velocities. This will result in strong eddys on the downwind side, sucking sand and debris into the air. The Plan could be modified to be more suitable to the area.
The City must ensure that adequate protection. . from coastal storms and routine erosion are met by encouragement of the dune rebui ldi ng process. The obvious ne ces s i ty to con tinue beach renourishment must be addressed in any plans for waterfront development in Jacksonville Beach as' must the need to protect the public access to the beach. Construction methods and materials must be compatible not only with the design of the structures in the area, but with the arduous climatic conditions which they will face over their projected life.
Neither the Conceptual Plan nor the Redevelopment Agency's
Community Redevelopment Plan directly address these important subjects. CHAPTER V
ALTERNA1IVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
There are two main issues facing the City of Jacksonville
Beach. The first is arriving at a public consensus on the type of land use that satisfies the community, offering the property owners a fair return for their property and the developers a reasonable profit. It must also result in a real improvement ~n the City's financial condition. Second, politically viable methods must be found to carry out the plan once decided upon.
Both issues require compromise of the many fac1;ions involved for the general good of the community. The interests of the parties involved in Jacksonville Beach are not diametrically opposed and have the potential for compromise. All parties are displeased with the status quo and would like to improve the
City's physical and financial condition.
Whether the City should persevere with the current redevelopment program or revert the area to private development coordinated by zoning and building regulations is a question which must he a n s we r e d by the community. Both me t h o d s o f f e r advantages and disadvantages. Pursuance of a City managed redevelopment should result in coordinated planning. Parcels
58 59
of land suitable for large scale development can be assembled by condemnation more easily under the present method. As presently conce~ved, however, the City must involve itself heavily in the financing of the project in partnership with the developers.
Should the redeve lopmen t concept be abandoned, private developers can be expected to propose a large number of projects along the waterfront consistent with what has already developed outside the project area. Under the present zoning and building codes, medium to high-rise construction with somewhat reduced beach access points can be anticipated. As the developers will probably be unable to assemble large parcels, the actual number of beach accesses may be greater than in the present Plan. These accesses, though greater in number, could be less effective in serving the public due to lack of coordinated planning of parking and traf f ic pa t terns. Pr i va t~ development of the area would reduce the City's financial commitment along with its ability to control development.
Theoretically, creative zoning methods and construction r 2gulations could res ul t in a we 11 planned re newa 1 of th e area. Present zoning and construction codes and their enforcement appear inadequate to the task, however.
The following illustration demonstrates the creation of a plan for the project area, considering the various factors 60
pertinent to waterfront planning. It is not intended to be an alternative to the existing Conceptual Plan but to show how the various factors may be incorporated when creating a plan.
The question of what density is to be permitted and its impact on the water supply and traffic congestion must be determined .. by the community prior to considering specific land use.
The first step is to determine the area actually a vai lable for deve lopmen ti , In thiseas e it ex te nds from th e
Coastal Construction Control Line to the east side of 3rd
Street. (Fig. 9) As the properties on the northern boundary must have access, 9th Avenue must remain. Therefore the nor the rn bound wou ld be the sou th s ide of 9th Aye nue, runn i ng south to the southern side of 1st Avenue. This eliminates a large portion of the redevelopment area.
secondly, the best possible use of the beach itself should be decided. A mix of recreation and tourism would be appropriate for Jacksonville Beach. This would allow for the cons tructi on of recreati ona I, res i den tia I and tour i s t oriented facilities along the beach. Therefore the beach itself would be zoned for the predominant uses planned, such as surfing, sailing, s wa mm Ln q and fishing. (Fig. 10)
As the beachfront in Jacksonville Beach is susceptible to potentially serious and recurring erosion problems from 61
nor thas t storms, any plan should inc lude a significant construction setback from the beach. Besides protecting the buildings, the area between the most seaward buildings and the beach can also serve as a partial solution to the need for public open space and beach access. Discussions with the
Executive Directors of the Redevelopment Aqency and the
Northea s t F lorida P Ianni n q Commis s i on, the Ci ty Engineer and a representative of the Corps of Engineers revealed they all concurred that, ideally, any new construction would be set well back from the beach. Keeping construction west of 1st Street was mentioned as an optimum situation. Setbacks can be obtained by the encouragement of cluster construction, where high density construction in one area is permitted if other portions of the property are left open. Another method is by trading development rights. For example, the City could close 1st
S treet, permi t ti ng a deve loper to bui ld on it in return for equal amount of property along the water. The developer would still have waterfront property of essentially undiminished value while the public would gain an open beachfront. Purchase of easements over private property can be u s e d by a community to keep land open and available to the public yet avoid the high cost of fee simple purchase. The City has applied for state funds for the purchase of other beachfront areas under the "Save Our Coasts" program. 8 3 The beachfront in the project area is a logical candidate for this program. 62
Access, both visual and physical, is extremely important. Provision must be made for visual corridors so that access is apparent and not hidden. Public parking is also critical for those who must depend upon the automobile for transportation to the beach. Provision is made for a very open and obvious main entrance to the beach.
In order to permit the highest property values, the straight beachfront in the project area can be artificially elongated by the provision of open areas. These irregularities along the beachfront, as indicated in Figure 11, permit more buildings to share the water view and easy access to the beach which increases property values.
Provis i on mus t be made for water dependen t acti vi ties that have secondary benefits such as attraction of spectators, tourists and others. In Jacks on vi lIe Beach an of f -the-bea ch sailing facility would require a parking and storage lot and access to the beach. The parking/storage lot need not be located in the highest value zone along the waterfront, but should be situated well back from the beach, sharing an access road to the beachfront. (Fig. 11)
Water related uses, those that will profit from being located on the water and from observation or support of the activities planned for the beach should be inserted next. As 63
the main entrance to the beach wl.ll be the mall leading from the major parking area, several commercial buildings flanking the entrance could be the sites of restaurants, shops and cafes. The curved shape would permit maximum beach views from thes e bui ldi n q a , In kee ping wi th th e open space cha racter of the entrance, the buildings would be low-rise. Similar low
-rise commercial buildings could be provided in those areas likely to require support for the activities planned for the area. Restaurants and shops could be expected to do well located near the surfing and sailing zones. (Fig. 12)
With the public's access and recreational requirements met, the high value projects can be planned. A h;t.gh-rise hotel located on the waterfront would lure conven ti onee rs and touris ts while providing facilities to host the regattas, surfing meets and other water oriented activities that will be attracted to the area. The rest of the beachfront can be developed with a mixture of residential buildings. Heigh ts should be as desired by the community.
Zone "e" as shown in F'igure 13, with its ease of access from 3rd Street, is well suited to commercial, retail and office use. Zone "B" has no primary orientation and may be used for parking for beachfront and 3rd Street facilities and other re lati ve ly low va 1 ue us es. This zone is a good location for evening recreation activitl.es. 64
BEACHFRONT PLANNING, PI-lASE ONE
2 « III V o
o -J- 'Z« .J I e(
FIGURE 9 65
BEACHFRONT PLANNING, PliASE TWO
I
'Z « uJ \J o 1----,·----1 <--_._.fS.!J'J;JV...... - "< >t >J lid/ nvW 7Vf1SII'1 j lu t------1 l\. o u- a~- () :~ ~l I-- 0 ... "II 'Z I I I I « I ::~. ~ :,:;r,i'.. I .J " .: .' I I " .\0 I ;' ~"
4: ,: 1--.1','' .,.'-'q::\ I '. ;.' FIGURe 10 66 BEACHFRONT PLANNING, P~~SE THREE ! I 2 i q: ttJ V Q 1 ~ a (;/oy 1- SS3"/.:J1! III _._---1 .....SS-..!JJ::JV " 7VIIS/1\ I ~. , _I a~ () a. : ~ I I-- c~ ~ I 2. --....-_. I « I .J I 1 I 4( FIGURE 11 ------_....-----_... '.' ... 67 BEACHFRONT PLANNING, PHASE FOUR 5s::r:>;){/ '" 71/1/&1/\ , I ~I "I I I I. I " FIGURE 12 " ------<-"-- 68 BEACHFRONT PLANNING, PHASE FIVE ! 2 « llJ \) o 1 711'/SI/\ I o ~l -l- "I 2 I ~ I .J I I t( 'i' .... FlGURn l~ ---"- ~..~..~.--"--'---'------CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION The problems facing Jacksonville Beach are not unique. Many communities have faced similar ones 1n the past. There are three factors upon which Jacksonville Beach must capitalize. The first is the unique lure a t s r e a d a Ly accessible pu b La c beach has in the northeast Florida area. This asset is worth far more than the City could afford to pay to replace it once lost. It could aqain become a main source of revenue for t.h o City if properly revitalized. This can be done a n a manner which preserves the lifestyle which Jacksonvi L'le Beach residents enjoy. If the beachfront is devoted exclusively to high-rise condominiums, the attraction of Jacksonville Beach to other than the residents of those condom1niums will be lost for decades. A second factor to be considered is that the City mu s t. profit from the mis takes of other communit1es. Unchecked development or buildings unsuitable for the area have destroyed the nature and quality of life of countless beachfront communities while enriching a few. Local governments have been ill equipped to dea 1 wi th the power fu 1 deve lopmen t for ces, or 69 70 have operated in concert with them. Usually the public ~nterest was not recognized or protected in the process. The concerned residents and officials of the City must take a careful look at other communities for examples of both successful and unsuccessful beachfront development. Recognition of the problems of past development served as the catalyst for the generation of the relatively new concept of coastal zone management. This new concept is the third factor. As the public in some areas perceived that the quality of life was being diminished by indiscriminate waterfront development, a pUblic outcry was heard demanding attention. The abi lity of the publi c to us e and en joy the beach was being impacted by development. A number of s tates responded by c reating coas ta 1 zone manage men t laws. The federa 1 governmen t followed suit, helping to establish state coastal zone management organizations throughout the coastal states. Through their efforts, there is now an understanding of the forces involved in the coastal zone which can help prevent the planning mistakes made in the past. It is likely that abuses similar to those carried out in the past will no longer be quietly tolerated by a concerned pub 1 ic. Increas i ng po litical and legal pressure will be brought to bear on coastal development perceived not to be in the public interest. The changes in federal government policy and funding of 71 local projects mandates new procedures to solve these problems. Local governments will be unable to fund major proj ects alone. Government/private sector coalitions are being uti11zed to accomp11sh a variety of projects. Both parties must cooperate for their mutual good. Government must provide early and c lear policy guidance and mai n tain cons is tanc Y» There mus t be a recognition that the private sector requires incentive in the form of a reasonable profit. The private sector must realize that attempts to achieve maximum profitability at the expense of the community may result in legal and political opposition. This can reduce profitability beyond what may have been attained by a project originally designed with the public welfare in mind. Success of the Jacksonville Beach project can only be determined by the public itself. In California, the state coastal zone management program owed its success to the active involvement of the citizenry.83 The citizens must be sure their voices are heard by the local government. Many of the coastal issues are characterized by "high transactions costs". That is, it is difficult to assemble all the interested parties together to effectively bargain for what is needed. 8 4 It becomes impossible to gather all the beach users to oppose the loss of access, for example. Therefore responsible government representation is vital. The key to the solution in Jacksonville Beach rests in the political process. 72 The ever present natural forces that impact the coast mus t be recogni zed and accepted. Ja cks on vi lle Beach mus t plan for continual erosion of its waterfront by northeast storms and be prepared for the potentially dis as te rous hurricanes. Beach renourishment has been largely financed by the federal government in the past. In these t a mes of shrinking federal assistance programs it is prudent to develop contingency plans for reduced renourishment funding. Most importantly, protection of the beach and beachfront development by conservation efforts, dune rebuilding and proper building techniques is absolutely vital. In summary then, Jacksonville Beach mus t have far reaching vision to look beyond the immediate results of a redevelopment program. The social, economic and physical impacts of development must be carefully weighed against the benefits to the public. The decisions made today will have far reaching effects. FOOTNOTES 1Robert B. Ditton, John L. Seymour, Gerald C. Swanson, Coastal Resources Management (Lexington, Ma.: D.C. Heath, 1977), P.6. 2U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1980, P.34. 3 De n nis W. Ducsik, Shoreline for the Public, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1974.), P.2. 4Robert G. Healy, Protecting the Golden Shore, (Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1978.) P. 41. 5 Lu ther J. Carter, The Florida Experience, (Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974.) P. 173. 6U.S. Department of the Army, Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers, General Design Memorandum of Duval County Beaches, Florida, (1975.), P. 23. 7Carter, The Florida Experience, P. 26. 73 74 8 U• S• Department of the Army, Design Memorandum, p. 17. 9Courtland Collier, Kamran Eshagi, George Cooper, and Richard E. Wolfe, Guidelines for Beachfront Construction with Special Reference to the Coastal Construction Setback Line, Florida Sea Grant Program (Report No. 20), p. 4. 10 J ohn Clark, The Sanibel Report, (Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1976), p. 47. 11Norman Nesmith, "Coastal Research", (M.A. dissertation, University of Florida, undated.), unnumbered. 1 2u• S. Department of the Army, Design Memorandum, p. 19. 1 3 Ibid., p. 68. 14 Ibid., p. 3. 1 5 Ibid., p. 4. 16Roy Paxson, Community Development Coordinator, City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, Interview held January 1983. 17Todd L. Walton Jr. and Thomas C. Skinner, Beach Dune Walkover Structures, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, 75 (Report No. SUSF-SG-76-006), p. 2. 18John H. Davis Jr., Stabilization of Beaches and Dunes, Florida Sea Grant Program (Report No.7, 1975), P> 2. 19Andy Hobbs, Interview in the offices of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida, January 1983. 20U• S• Department of the Army, Design Memorandum, p. 31. 21 Flo rida and the U.S. Department of Commerce, The Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program, (1981), p , II-245. 22Ibid., p. II-247. 23 Ro y paxson, Interview, January 1983. 24 U• S• Department of the Army, Design Memorandum, p. 37. 25An d y Hobbs, Interview, January 1983. 26 Ro y Paxson, Interview, January 1983. 27An d y Hobbs, Interview, January 1983. 76 28DUksic, Shoreline for the Public, p. i. 29 I bid., p , 91. 30 Ibid., p , 102. 31 I b 1.i d ., p. 39. 32Ru therford H. Platt, The Open Space Decision Making Process (Chicago, University of Chicago, 1972), p , 136. 33 He aly, Protecting the Golden Shore, p , 136. 34DUksic, Shoreline for the Public, p , 79. 35 He aly, Protecting the Golden Shore, p. 2. 36Sunset Magazine, November 1981. 37Healy, Protecting the Golden Shore, p , 151. 38 Ke nt Mathewson and William B. Neenan, eds., Financing the Metropolis (N.Y., Praeger Publishers, 1980), p. 52. 39An d y Hobbs, Interview, January 1983. 77 40Duksic, Shoreline for the Public, p, 79. 41 Healy, Protecting the Golden Shore, p , 75. 42 Duksic, Shoreline for the Public, p , 35. 43 Ibid., p , 27. 44Flo rida and the u.S. Department of Commerce, Final Environmental Impact Statement, p , II-240. 45Ditton, Seymour and Swanson, Coastal Resources Management, p , 94. 46 I bOd1 ., p , 1 7 47Robert W. Semenow, Questions and Anwers About Real Estate (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 1969), p , 418. 48 He aly, Protecting the Golden Shore, P> 164. 49Duksic, Shoreline for the Public, p , 169. 50 Ibid, p. 196. 51Carter, The Florida Experience, p , 152. 78 52He al y , Protecting the Golden Shore, p. 165 53William J. Blaumol and Alan S. Blinder, Economics, Principles and Policy (New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982), p. 536. 54DUksic, Shoreline for the Public, p. 58. 55Collier, Eshagi, Cooper and Wolfe, Guidelines for Coastal Construction, p. 36. 56Ibid., p. 3. 57 Flo rida and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 11-79. 58 I b'd1 ., p. 11-80. 59Collier, Eshagi, Cooper and Wolfe, Guidelines for Coastal Construction, p. 39. 60 Ibid, p. 38. 61 J a ck Wilson, City Engineer, City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, Interview held in City Hall, January 1983. 79 62 BOb Nelson, Executive Director, Jacksonville Beaches Chamber of Commerce, Interview in Jacksonville Beach, January 1983. 63 J a cksonville Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Community Redevelopment Plan for the Jacksonville Beach Commun1ty Redevelopment Area (Jacksonville Beach, Florida, 1982), p , 6. 64 J o h n Searles, Executive Director, Jacksonville Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Interview in Jacksonville Beach, January 1983. 65 Be a ches (Jacksonville Beach) Leader, 16 September 1982. 66 Ibid, 18 November 1982. 67City of Jacksonville Beach Florida, Minutes of the City Council meetinq, 15 December 1982. 68 Be a ches Leader, 16 September 1982. 69 To m Borchert, Beaches Preservation Society, Interview in Jacksonville Beach, January 1983. 80 70Healy, Protecting the Golden Shore, p. 33. 71 Flo rida and the U.S. Department of Commerce, Final Environmental Impact Statement, p. 11-240 72 Da n Cassel, Executive Director, Northeast Florida Planning Commission, Interview in Jacksonville, January 1983. 73 J a cksonville Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Community Redevelopment Plan, p. 11. 74Carter, The Florida Experience, p , 14. 75City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, Minutes of the City Council meeting, 15 December 1983. 76 J ohn Clark, The Sanibel Report, p. 185. 77 J a cksonville Beach Community Redevelopment Agency, Communi ty Redeve lopmen t Plan, p. 22. 78H.O. Cutler, Engineering Consultant to the Beaches Preservation Society, Letter, 16 July 1982. 79Carter, The Florida Experience, p. 35. 81 80J ohn Searles, Interview, January 1983. 81Andy Hobbs, Interview, January 1983. 82Secretary of the Army, House Document No. 273, 89th Cong., 1 st s e s s , 83 He aly, Protecting the Golden Shore, p. 4. 84 Ibid., p. 139. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY BOOKS Baumol, William J., and Blinder, Alan S. Economics, Principles and Policy. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1982. Carter, Luther J. The Florida Experience. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1974. Clark, John. The Sanibel Report. Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1976. Ditton, Robert B.~ Seymour, John L.~ Swanson, Gerald C. Coastal Resources Management. Lexington, Ma.: D.C. Heath, 1977 Ducsik, Dennis W. Shoreline for the Public. Boston: The MIT Press, 1974. Healy, Robert G. Protecting the Golden Shore. Washington: The Conservation Foundation, 1978. Heikoff, Joseph M. Marine and Shoreline Resources Management. 82 83 Ann Arbor: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, 1980. Mathewson, Kent; Neenan, William B., e d s , Financing the Metropolis. N.Y.: Praeger Publishers, 1980. Platt, Rutherford H. The Open Space Decision Process. Chicago: The University of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1972. Semenow, Robert W. Questions and Answers About Real Estate. 6th edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1969. REPORTS Collier, Courtland; Eshagi, Kamran; Cooper, George; and Wolfe, Richard E. Guidelines for Beachfront Construction with Special Reference to the Coastal Construction Setback Line. Florida Sea Grant Program, Report No. 20, Feb. 1977 Davis Jr., John H. Stabilization of Beaches and Dunes by Vegetation in Florida. Florida Sea Grant Program, Report No.7, Sept. 1975 Purpura, James A.; Sensabaugh, William M. Coastal Construction Setback Line. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Report No. SUSF-SG-76-006. 84 Sensabaugh, William M. The Beach -A Natural Protection From the Sea. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Report No. SUSF-SG-75-002. Walton Jr., Todd L.i Skinner, Thomas C. Beach Dune Walkover Structures. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Marine Advisory Program, Report No. SUSF-SG-76-006. PUBLIC DOCUMENTS Florida and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Florida Coastal Zone Management Program, August 1981. Florida and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Florida Coastal Zone Management Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement Appendix, January 1981. U.S. Department of the Army. General Design Memorandum of Duval County Beaches, Florida. Jacksonville District Corps of Engineers, August 1975. U.S. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstracts of the United States, 1980. 85 u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Flood Hazard Boundary Map of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, No. H-01. Federal Insurance Administration, March 15, 1977. u.s. House of Representatives. Letter From the Secretary of the Army, August 23, 1965. House Document No. 273. 89th Cong, 1st Sess. OTHER SOURCES Borchert, Tom. The Beaches Preservation Society, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Interview, 5 January 1983. Cassel, Dan. Executive Director, Northeast Florida Planning Commission, Jacksonville, Florida. Interview, 6 January 1983. City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida. City Council Meeting. Minutes, 15 December 1982. Cutler, H.O. Consulting Services to Beaches Preservation Soci e t y • Let t e r, 1 6 Ju 1 y 1 9 8 2 • Desapio, Fred. "Discrepancies Cast Doubt On Redevelopment Area Density", Beaches Leader, 18 November 1982. 86 Hobbs, Andy. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, Jacksonville, Florida. Interview, 4 January 1983. Nelson, Bob. Executive Director, Jacksonville Beaches Chamber of Commerce, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Interview, 5 January 1983. Nesmith, Norman. "Coastal Research" (M.A. dissertation, University of Florida), undated. Paxson, Roy. Community Development Coordinator, City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Interview, 4 January 1983. Searles, John. Executive Director, Jacksonville Beach Redevelopment Agency, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Interview, 6 January 1983. Sunset Magazine, Menlo Park, California, November, 1981. "The $250, 000 Question", Beaches Leader, 16 September 1982, Editorial. Wilson, Jack. City Engineer, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Interview, 5 January 1983.